Gov. Daugaard's suggestions for DC

First, in most states, the governor has the power of the line-item veto of appropriations. If he or she doesn?t want a certain appropriation of money to be spent, the governor can veto one or more lines of the appropriation bill ? without vetoing the entire bill. Those particular items of appropriation cannot then be spent unless two-thirds of the House and Senate override that line-item spending veto. Even the mere existence of that power holds down spending at the state level. The president, no matter to which political party he or she belongs, should have that same power.

Daugaard has shown himself to be a politician who isn’t afraid to make some tough decisions. He is an easy person for many to admire because he accepts that some will be upset with his decisions. No one wants to be the politician who has to make difficult budget cuts. It’s much easier to spend and be generous with tax payer dollars. But like most elected officials, he didn’t get to choose the circumstances surrounding his term. The choices he and the legislature made last session will serve South Dakota well in the long run and ensure that the essential needs of our society continue to be met.

As a second suggestion, prohibit bills that deal with multiple subjects. In most states, bills must be concerned with only one subject. In South Dakota, our constitution says it this way: “No law shall embrace more than one subject, which shall be expressed in its title.” Those bills are discussed and debated, and passed or defeated, based on the merits of the one-subject proposal.

When I read his suggestions to our leaders in Washington DC, I was reminded how good we have it in South Dakota. We have had responsible leadership that does not spend more money than we have, and in tough economic times they have had the courage to make cuts that require our state to continue to move forward on solid financial ground. We don’t tax and spend or borrow and spend. We balance our budget.

When Dennis Daugaard speaks I listen, because I believe him to be a genuine and honest man who has earned my support.

Not like Gov. Daugaard is the first one to suggest these things, but good suggestions both.

Here’s a third suggestion that Gov. Daugaard probably won’t like any more than former Gov. Rounds. The federal government needs to cut spending by scaling back its reach and returning some functions to state governments, including:

1) the building and repair of all roads and bridges that are not interstates and US highways. Why should federal taxpayers pay for all roads and bridges everywhere? State and local governments should pay for state and local roads. This will cut federal deficits, but may require more taxes at the state and local level where the spending decisions are actually made. Should cut down on pet projects and result in better decisionmaking and prioritizing when the money comes from right here in SD & every other state.

2) “Disaster” relief. Every rain, wind or snowstorm and seasonal flooding anywhere in the country is now a “disaster” triggering federal aid. Why should the federal government have to dish out money if we get hail in Woonsocket, heavy snow in Faith or flooding Waubay Lake? If government must pay, then it ought to be paid by state and local ought government.

3) Water projects like Lewis & Clark paid for by actual users of the projects. The federal government should have no role here.

Besides cutting federal deficits dramatically, these ideas would give states like SD the chance to practice what they preach – actually paying their own way without so much allowance from big daddy.

I do not agree totally but at least the first to give truthful examples of what can be done to cut spending. The cut is fine but give the examples before all the fanfare of ‘we’ are going to cut and then ‘we’ do nothing………….

Anon 11:57 I like your thinking. What if all the money we have ever put into SS would have created a revolving super low interest loan program allotted for state programs with a 10 or 20 year payback period? Wow, we would now have infastructure being built and money increasing back into the SS money pool thereby keeping not only the states highways and bridges up to snuff but the integrity of the SS system in perfect order. Think REDI fund.